Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Request for clarity

What exactly is a "legitimate resistance movement", especially in an un-occupied country ? When was the last time you saw a resistance movement carry out rocket attacks to foreign soil ?

I'm REALLY not getting a good sense of what's going on with Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Israel from reading this. I know current events are moving quickly (duh), but even the background stuff here seems hopelessly out of date. Any chance of getting this page reorganized? Thanks. Jay.ricketts 15:52, 31 July 2006, EDT

I'm not sure what you want ... This page is supposed to be about the organization Hezbollah. Maybe in another month or so there'll be another heading 'Destruction of Hezbollah' or '2006 Triumph of Hezbollah' or 'Continued Conflicts with Israel after the 2006 Conflict' ... depends on what happens. The 'Current Events' are covered in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. What is it that you are expecting to find that isn't here? JiHymas@himivest.com 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am hoping for the heading of Hezbollah and IDF lay down arms for joint potluck picnics - all are welcome(no pork) .... :D Mceder 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we please clarify that although Hezbollah is the common term, it is in fact a misnomer. It's really Hezballah, which is much closer to the actual arabic meaning "party of god". Hezbollah sounds more like "party of urine", because bollah in arabic means piss. I'd really appreciate clarification on that- it makes me cringe every time.

Good Christ, that is unfortunate. :-(  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations are always imperfect, but here we use whatever is the most widely used form, which is "Hezbollah".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


In the current page, the opening paragraph includes the sentence "It also opposes, at least ideologically, Israel’s right to exist.[4]"

Do recent events merit removing the 'at least ideologically' clause from that statement?

Absolutely. Hezbollah has since it's inception worked militarily against Israel's existence. It should never have been put there in the first place

Suggestion to shorten the article size a bit

Starting at Entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist and down, quoting long pieces that are already sourced, it can be replaced with something much shorter - I propose doing so since I do not believe it will take away from the article. Something like this can replace it, obviously with sources intact:

Hezbollah has been labeled a terrorist organization, either in full or part by the following countries:

United States (In full)
Canada (In full)
Israel (In full)
United Kingdom (Lists only the Hezballah External Security Organisation)
Netherlands (Lists only the Hezballah External Security Organisation)
European Union (Lists only Hezbollah's senior intelligence officer - IMad Mugniyah

Mceder 13:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The History section is the longest, thus the most convenient for shortening. It's common use with many WP entries to replace it by a summary and move to its own article. --tickle me 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have created History of Hezbollah. What do you think about shortening down the entries on the terrorist claims? Mceder 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the quotations from the Entities designating Hezbollah as terrorist section, along the lines of Mceder's suggestion. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me too - except you have ommited Australia as a nation that lists ESO. Seeing the list like this though, really brings home the inballance of such sections. Only 3 countries consider them fully terrorist and another 3 consider the external org - that is 6 countries out of the entire planet. if the section were entitled countries that don't consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation it would be a much longer list. Just an observation. DavidP 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it was a quick piece I put together. I do have the source for a table using Wikitable with all the references and Australia as well. I can put this in when I get home this evening. And I agree with you on your observation. It is a very long section to point out that 6 countries consider them or part of them as a terrorist organisation. Mceder 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. I also removed the reference to Russia not listing them, since starting that list would be quite the task(currently all countries except for the 6). In essence, an omission from the list currently listing them as terrorist should be enough. I am concerned that there may be some reverts, or I missed a point in the contents I removed so please look it over and revert or update as needed. Mceder 00:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia is part of the Middle East quartet and so it's opinion is relevant. Also, if you are going to list which countries regard Hezbollah as terrorist you also need to list some prominent ones which don't. Deuterium 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! If you are going to revert, please don't revert to a version that defines Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization and political party which uses attacks aimed at civilians to achieve it's goals". That is the current article that you reverted it to. Since I don't do the revert back and forth thing, I will leave it to someone else to revert back to it's proper version. I appreciate your feedback on the changes. Perhaps you can add the things you requested? The article is a bit bloated so we are just trying to simplify things, that's all. Cheers - Mceder 01:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I was the guy who copied the snippet about Russia from "Background" to the new section, so you know where I stand! I agree that we don't really want to make a list of every sovereign nation that doesn't list H as T, but Russia's an influential player (or at least a wannabe) with ties to the region ... and they did have a list and they didn't put H on it. So I vote "Yes" to Russia. Great looking table, by the way! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. What I did was move that statement into the opening phrase; such as this: Six countries have designated part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, a label vehemently disputed by some other countries. A notable omission of Hezbollah in it's list of terrorist groups is Russia, who released the list in the midst of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. - Since we are introing with the six who designated them as terrorists, lets also include the one who must of specifically omitted it (since it was released Friday(!!)) to balance it out. Mceder 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me and my apologies for the earlier mistake. Deuterium 05:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No problems at all! Mceder 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Do the EU really list list only Hezbollah's senior intelligence officer - IMad Mugniyah as a terrorist organisation? That is, they call 1 guy an organisation?? That seems pretty strange. 203.206.24.90 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the section is good now. We're showing those who do designate H as T and accounting for each member of the Quartet. JiHymas@himivest.com 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

France has just shown up in the terrorism section, not because they've designated H as T, but because their president has been quoted using the two words in the same sentence. I'd like to delete this, but is there a consensus? JiHymas@himivest.com 10:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Why are we talking about the two sides as just enemies? Hezbollah is not doing what it is doing because they are crazy, or they smoke crack. Israel has been occuping lebanese land and killing MASS numbers of civilians yet the whole western world and all i hear on the news is; Hezbollah's unprovocked attack on israeli forces - bullshit. Hezbollah formed because of the Israeli occupation and when every bit of arab land is not occupied you will see there will not be one hezbollah rocket or any attacks on israeli forces or any of this. Why are we so blind to see what is happening here, over 1000 Innocent lebanese civilians have been killed by these so called peace loving nation. Israel has a twisted view on reality and they should honestly wake up to them selves. They expect to create a jewish nation and because of the backing from the US they have just taken advantage of that and claim more and more land, and who dares stop them? - The answer is hezbollah, and you will see on the news and other sources Israel is having a hard time dealing with these so-called "terrorists", Honestly i mean just because they are honest when they hit civilians and consider it a victory and these deceiving Israeli defence forces are so apoligetic etc. I mean, if i shot someone in the leg and said aww i am so sorry and then go ahead and shoot him in the arm, seriously. Everyone here that beleive anything more than these points please, i ask them to argue them:

Hezbollah was formed as resistance against the Israelis occuping their land. Israel has killed mounds more neighbouring arabs than arabs have killed Israeli and still they consider their enemies "terrorist". During the israeli occupation israeli forces captured thousands of INNOCENT civilians, yet this has not been mentioned by one of the Israeli officals, Not Once!

Now.. Logically looking at all the facts, Do we all agree that if Israel stops it's aggression, withdrawls from all land occupied and assist in the creation of the Palestinian state.

Also everyone has probably heard of the statement from the Iranian President; That the solution to the problem lies where israel is wiped of the map, Now you think - That is just ridicoulus, but please, Where can i buy a map that has the country "Palestine" - Which was wiped off the map as Israel was created.

THE EUROPEAN UNION NEVER CALLED HEZBOLLAH A TERROIST GROUP! THAT IS IT END OF STORY. IF THEY CALLED ONE GUY A TERROIST WELL THEN GO WRITE A POSTING ABOUT HIM. SKYEARTH

Im curious as to why westerners can't see this as well. Perhaps we are a bunch of zionist-loving fools whos government is RUN by pro-zionist factions? Perhaps we feel ashamed of the holocaust and are allowing israel to exact some sort of revenge. Reverse-genocide? Is that even a term? It seems it should be considering the conflict that is now ongoing in the sovereign nation of Lebanon. WAKE UP PEOPLE. Jeremy D. 03:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the use of jihad, especially in the context of the sentence is inappropriate: Does "Jihad" merely mean "war", as in armed resistance? Because that's not my understanding of what Jihad means. What's at stake here is to clearly state (and perhaps elsewhere explain) the difference between "war" and "holy war". In this case it's not legitimate to use "holy war", because logically, the conclusion to "...For these reasons [see preceeding text], many consider violent acts performed by [Hezbollah] to be acts of Jihad." The process involved in the declaration of Jihad is undermined in the current word-usage by the apparent cause and effect relationship of warefare. Needs clarification.

Removal of dubious quotation

I removed this quotation: "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[1]. Please have a look at the source, its an editorail in the New York Sun and it is really unclear where the statement is from. If someone can come up with a precise reference for the quotation, feel free to add it again. Bertilvidet 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at that quotation as well, though not in the same way. It seems to me that the entire issue (Hezbollah & Israel/Zionists/Jews) could be dealt with very briefly ... something like "Hezbollah seeks the destruction of Israel (lots of references). Its views have been criticized as genocidal (lots of references)." It seems to me that there's more detail in this section than is appropriate for such a short summary (with perhaps a wikiLink to Arab-Israeli conflict), given the inherent problems of POV in selecting the material to be highlighted. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that now we have too many sources basically stressing the same point. However, I am not sure the ideology of Hezbollah can be described that easy. The article needs to describe the change in hezbollah's rethoric, which has become far more moderate since Israels withdrawal from (the vast majority of) Southern Lebanon. I heard recently in the radio that Nasrallah has been quoted for saying that Hezbollah will not have any issue with Israel, if they withdraw from the Shebba Farms and return the remaining Lebanese prioserns in Israeli prisons. I have so far not been able to find the reference for that quotation, but please add it if anyone comes across it. Bertilvidet 23:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler also said that he would stop invading European countries if he could just get a little more land 72.70.69.211 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not relevantimi2 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally relevant.Labaneh 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As I told before in "POV debate" I doubt "all" means "Jews" ,including anti-zionist jews. The first part of his quatation shows he meant "Zionists" including Jews and Christian Zionists.[1] --Sa.vakilian 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How many truly anti-semetic remarks do I need to post before you accept that Hassan Nasrallah hates Jews? I will be sure he says yahud and not zionist in his rhetoric. You give me the number and I'll give you the proof.

If you put the links of his quotations and not the U.S. newspapers' interpretations, I'll accept. --Sa.vakilian 04:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Polling and Legitimacy

How legitimate is it to poll a population under duress? Lebanese fearing for their lives are not able to express their true views.

The poll which is done before war shows similar result: "while according to another poll, from July 2005, 74 percent of Christian Lebanese viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization." Also if Hezbollah weren't legitimate in Lebanon, how could it participate in government.--Sa.vakilian 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a simple answer to your retort: They were under duress far before the election. They were under duress during the election, and they have been under duress ever since. The only reason there isn't a civil war is because the Christians and Druze backed down, for now, and believe me, Hezbollah knows that.
As for the poll, the Druze don't support Hezbollah, they culturally support whoever is the dominating party. You can watch films of Druze welcoming each and every conquering party, be it Israeli or Arab, they always have the same reaction. They throw flowers out the window and cheer. The go to their oldest olive tree and tear off a whole branch to show their support for the incoming conquerors. That's a part of their religeon, and that's how they've survived in the region for millenia.
Although the Christians are a bit more divided in their views, I assure you the majority do not support Hizb'allah, many have family in Northern Israel, and Israel is their most powerful (and only) ally in the entire region.Labaneh 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about Druze and Christians but disagree with about Hezbollah supporters. Hezbollah is the most powerful party which can gather people. It not only represents shi'a ,the largest group in Lebanon, but also it can lead prosyrian and antiisraeli groups. And I remined you never the situation become normal in Lebanon. As I read from 1970s there were special situation. So you can't be sure about any poll. Therefor you can't deduce Hezbollah isn't be supported by majority of Lebanese.--Sa.vakilian 17:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Labeneh has not cited any authoritative sources for his claims. I'm waiting ... JiHymas@himivest.com 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sa: If you agree with me about Druze and Christians, than you know that Hezbollah violently forces a whole portion of the population into going along with something they didn't believe in, despite Hezbollah being a minority in the government (i.e. duress) which makes Hezbollah
1) A terror Organization that Terrorizes it's own people
2) Illigitimate, and
3) Despotic. tell me if I've missed something here.
JiHymas@himivest.com, my father fought in the Israeli Army from 1970 to 1986 alongside the Southern Lebanese Army. He was briefed on the Druze benevolence reactions in film briefings and then as a combat tank gunner, personally experienced the reactions of the Druze population on several occasions upon entrance and exit from their regions. To quote the Wikiarticle on Druze: they '...use the (accepted) practice of taqiyya, "dissimulation", whereby they concealed their true beliefs and outwardly accepted the religious beliefs of those amongst whom they lived even as they secretly retained their true convictions' This goes beyond religeous belief to nationalism. This is exemplified by the fact that many Druze volunteer into the Israeli army in Israel, and support Hezbollah in Lebanon.

There is only one abbheration to this rule, a small portion of Druze living in the northernmost parts of the Golan affiliate themselves with Syria and renounce their Israeli citizenship. This is primarily because their families are divided across international boundaries and the area is all but deserted in those regions.

The Southern Lebanese Army, which comprised of Maronite Christians, vehemiently abhorred Palestinians because they felt the Palestinians were a guest that ruined their country with a civil war. As an ally of the Palestinians, Hezbollah butchered the Christians, and the Christians in turn, butchered back. Many Christians, like most cultures in the region have never forgotten nor forgiven for the crimes committed.

When Barak withdrew the Israeli Army, he took along many of the major generals (and their families) of the Southern Lebanese Army and allowed them Israeli Citizenship. This spared their families cruel fates and most live up north in the Golan, awaiting unifications with the rest of their families and abhorring the Hezbollah, who are now endangering both their lives. I know because many are my friends.

Take the testimony of Bridgit Gabriel, Maronite Christian from Lebanon who was saved by Israelis in the early 80s.Labaneh 20:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or former PLO Terrorist Walid Shoebat as to the situation in the region.

Oh, Christ. Isn't this like claiming the Israeli population is under duress because the police takes unkindly to violence against the IDF? It's unclear to me that polling in Lebanon is any less reliable than polling in Israel.
As for Shoebat, I remember him visiting my university a couple years back. As far as I'm concerned, you've given up any claim to balance (much less neutrality) by citing him to back up a point.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 20:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Labenah, I can't agree that citing "Comments attributed by a pseudonymous Wikipedian to his Dad" meets the standard of "authoritative source" JiHymas@himivest.com 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Labaneh I said agree with you about deruz and christians, not everything you said. You think your narration is the truth but there isn't sufficient evidence to judge. As I told before, Hezbollah represents Shiite and also leads antiIraeli and proSyrian groups. So Don't you think these are the majority of Lebanese. In addition I think Deruz and christians support Hezbollah because they fight well and show their power against Israel, but they only support not beleive in Hezbollah. --Sa.vakilian 04:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, there is no unbiased opinion here, there is only fair reporting on such a hot issue, that's all you can achieve.

Banzai, in our correspondence, you have been outright Pro-PLO, pro Hezbollah and against any Israeli offensive, It's understandable, and I differ from your opinion, but don't claim that one of my sources makes my entire argument false, particularly a source that is an ex-PLO operative. Walid Jumblatt's message is this: I was an Islamist militant, I was incited to murder my entire life by Arab media and culture, I joined the PLO & did some bad shit, and when I moved to the US to start a terrorist cell, I got married and reformed. Now he goes around educating nations on Islamic terror. What's the problem with his citation?

Regarding your comment - '"Israeli population is under duress because the police takes unkindly to violence against the IDF?"' - What in God's holy name are you blathering about? Death by mob lynching due to Lebanon's non-exhistant justice system has no resemblance on Israeli policies whatsoever. If someone murders in Israel, the alleged murderer is put to trial and imprisoned accordingly. Israeli civilians can AND DO say anything they want without fear of being murdered, that's why you can poll them knowing that the margin of error comes from lying and not duress. If someone so much as says "I think Israel is right in this conflict" amidst Hezbollah, they are put to death - Christians and Muslims alike - and there are Hezbollah informants all over Lebanon. Please come back with a cogent argument.

JiHymas, you may not appreciate it, but my father is a primary source that was in Lebanon for years.

Sa, if the Arabs ever destroy Israel, which kaffir is next? I think you have a reasonable point of view, but I think you know that people in this region don't forget. Everything that happens is remembered in the cultural mind and avenged in time. THIS is a real hudna - until either Israel or Hezbollah win, Christians support Hezbollah as a show in order not to get butchered, and Hezbollah temporarily stop maiming Christians for being Kaffirs, but you said it yourself, there isn't sufficient evidence to judge - an inacurate or immeasurable poll shouldn't be sited when there are plenty of unsaid facts in this article.

I think there should be a split between pro-Israel and Pro-Hezbollah opinions on this article. It's difficult when I have a minority viewpoint, I've stopped citing because you guys delete hours of my hard work in seconds.Labaneh 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(In response to Labaneh's "...[d]eath by mob lynching due to Lebanon's non-exhistant justice system ... If someone so much as says 'I think Israel is right in this conflict' amidst Hezbollah, they are put to death...":)
Oh jesus christ. Have you ever been to Lebanon? Not even the Hezbollah-controlled south is as you describe. It seems you're deluding yourself about life in Lebanon at least as much as you are about justice in Israel.
Try to remember that pro-PLO (or Hezbollah) and pro-Israel aren't mutually exclusive positions. The PLO, for example, supports Israel's right to exist and represents Israel's best hope to moderate Hamas. Recognizing the futility of the IDF's campaign, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or Lebanon, wouldn't be anti-Israel—it'd be as pro-Israel as you can get.
Note further that I'm not saying I support any of these positions. I just want to tweak your intellect a bit.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Banzai!, Where did you get the weird idea that PLO supports Israel's right to exist? 149.99.19.84 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Including any kind of polls from a country currently engaged in war on it's own territory is completely irresposible and stupid. Everybody knows that wars are fought as much (if not more so) on the homefront as they are fought on the outside. This means that a side ingaged in active warfare will always display unity. Right up until defeat. As such, please remove any reference to polls conducted during the present escalation. 149.99.19.84 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


What is the organization websitite?

Link please .

From the links section:
Mceder 15:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to ask the same thing! The edits of 01:02, 2 August 2006 65.93.209.196 changed the reference from http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/ to http://www.moqawama.net/
Both are registered to
Unlisted-Whois.com Protection Service
P.O. Box 229
Margaretville, NY 12455
US
Sounds like a dangerous line of work to me!
JiHymas@himivest.com 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I know all of these site and some other sites like [2] are belonged to Hezbollah. But the languages are different and they use different adress to prevent hackers.--Sa.vakilian 07:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you know? If we could establish a chain of referrals starting with a site that is known to be authoritative (such as Lebanese government, or Mohammed Fneish, the cabinet minister), this would be a good thing to note. ESPECIALLY since I understand there are some claims that Israel has hacked the al-Manar television signal and is substituting their own content on at least one satellite. JiHymas@himivest.com 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Haaretz says "Hezbollah's media empire - which includes the Al-Nur radio station and the Web site moqawama.net - has been an inseparable part of the psychological war." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745287.html JiHymas@himivest.com 15:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.alghaliboun.net/english/ has been down for a few hours. Bombed? Hacked? Or is the cheque in the mail? JiHymas@himivest.com 04:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the revision dated 22:51, 5 August 2006, user Nimur cast doubt on whether either of these sites are official. I have left a message on his talk page. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nimur has answered. I am taking the liberty moving his reply, posted as a new section on this page, to a subsection of this one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands lists Hezbollah as Terrorist?

There are two references in the table. One is merely a bureaucratic report, not a political statement. It notes in passing that the Netherlands no longer distinguishes between Hezbollah and the ESO for policy purposes, but provides no hint as to what that policy is. The other is in Dutch and I'm a typical stupid North American who can only speak one language and it ain't Dutch. I may be a little naive here, but I suspect that if the Dutch did designate H as T, I would be able to find a lot of English Language references to that effect, simple references that didn't use a lot of big words. I did find one interesting article on my travels, Europe rejects US hard line once again which seems to imply that the Dutch would like the EU to do it ... which implies to me that they haven't done it themselves, or the article would say so. Also, I know from working on the Al-Manar article that the reason Al-Manar is banned in Holland is not because they're terrorist, and not even because they're anti-Semitic, but because they never applied for a license. Which again, is some absence of evidence that I'm tempted to believe is evidence of absence. Are there any bona-fide Dutch people here who can provide a rough translation of the article quoted? JiHymas@himivest.com 05:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak Dutch. But your mention of the Al-Manar article prompted me to take a look at your work there. I can't even begin to imagine how much research the "Banning of Broadcasts" section must have taken you. Nice work.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the translation: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/netherlands/aivd2004-eng.pdf "Investigations have shown that Hezbollah’s terrorist wing, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, has been directly and indirectly involved in terrorist acts. It can also be concluded that Hezbollah’s political and terrorist wings are controlled by one co-ordinating council. This means that there is indeed a link between these parts of the organisation. The Netherlands has changed its policy and no longer makes a distinction between the political and terrorist Hezbollah branches. The Netherlands informed the relevant EU bodies of its findings."

I have just added a fact tag to the Netherlands listing; unless consensus to the contrary is reached, I will delete the row from the table in 24-odd hours. According to http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3204.htm : August 2004, the Act on Terrorist Crimes, implementing the 2002 EU framework decision on combating terrorism, became effective. According to http://usinfo.state.gov/is/img/assets/4475/Country_Report_Terrorism_31727.pdf (page 50; is page 58 of PDF):

Using national sanctions authority, the Dutch blocked the accounts and financial transactions of a HAMAS fundraiser, the al-Aqsa Foundation, and al-Qa’ida-affiliated Benevolence International Nederland. In July, the Netherlands froze all financial assets of the Dutch branch of al-Haramain. The Dutch have also been active in seeking support for an EU designation of Hizballah as a terrorist group.

In other words:

  • The Dutch have a list
  • al-Haramain, "a HAMAS fundraiser", the "al-Aqsa Foundation" and "Benevolence International Nederland" are on it
  • Hezbollah isn't on it - the Dutch are attempting to convince their peers in the EU to list them in a coordinated fashion, but have not done anything unilaterally.

JiHymas@himivest.com 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No - here is the relevant section from the 2004 report (which was prepared after the above mentioned policy from Aug 2004)

2.2.3 Lebanese Hezbollah

Investigations have shown that Hezbollah's terrorist wing, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation, has been directly and indirectly involved in terrorist acts. It can also be concluded that Hezbollah's political and terrorist wings are controlled by one co-ordinating council. This means that there is indeed a link between these parts of the organisation. The Netherlands has changed its policy and no longer makes a distinction between the political and terrorist Hezbollah branches. The Netherlands informed the relevant EU bodies of its findings. Marokwitz 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention in the bureaucrat's report of listing H under the "Act on Terrorist Crimes". Unless you can show, specifically, that H is on this list (put there as a political decision, with practical effect), out it goes. Incidentally, I thought deleting my fact tag showed blatant disregard for Wiki-courtesy. JiHymas@himivest.com 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are absolutely wrong. The Act on Terrorist Crimes, regards implementing the 2002 EU framework decision on combating terrorism. In June 2004, the Dutch for the first time successfully convicted two individuals of terrorist activity allowing use of intelligence of the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) as evidence. This report (AIVD) is their list of terrorists. The confistcation of assets that you quoted above is a different list - the UN Sanctions Committee established by UNSCR 1267. Which is also accepted by the Dutch. Any attempt to remove this important information from this article would be considered by me as a blatant twisting of the facts. Marokwitz 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
JiHymas already says that there is no listing of Hezbollah in that document. So, how does the conviction of two individuals of terrorist activities translate into the Dutch listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization despite the fact that Hezbollah isn't in the list? __earth (Talk) 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


If you look in the document, section 2.2.3 you will clearly see that it IS listed there. The Dutch have been active in seeking support for an EU designation of Hizballah as a terrorist group. Why would they do that if they don't consider the Hizbullah a terrorist group ? Marokwitz 16:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Earth - I am not disputing that Hezbollah is included in the report of the AIVD. What I am disputing is that the government has acted on this report and proscribed Hezbollah. Anyway, for those willing to look for the actual list of proscribed organizations, the Dutch government website is at: http://english.nctb.nl/ JiHymas@himivest.com 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you give an exact link to the list of proscribed organizations? To the best of my knowledge AIVD is the dutch entity responsible for creating this list, and I wasn't able to locate the other list that you are talking about. Marokwitz 17:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find such a list either. But I have found this: http://www.government.nl/actueel/dossieroverzicht/Terrorismebestrijding.jsp in which they state:
Here are the main measures the government has taken to combat terrorism:'
* ...
*Banning terrorist organisations blacklisted by the European Union.
The implication being that they do not maintain their own list, they use the EU's. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've also found this, at http://www.government.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2004/12December/07/0-42-1_42-51585.jsp (dated 2004, but prominently linked from the page referenced above)
MEASURES AGAINST TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS ON EU LISTS
Organisations on EU lists of terrorist organisations will be banned in the Netherlands and actively working for such organisations will be a criminal offence.
These measures reflect the government's resolve to crack down on international terrorism.
At present the authorities can do no more than freeze the bank accounts of organisations on EU lists of terrorist organisations, but new legislation will allow them to ban their activities in the Netherlands altogether. For a start, they will no longer be able to recruit new members.
The courts will also be able to ban foreign-based organisations that are not on the EU terrorism lists, such as organisations that pose a threat to public order. In such cases, the public prosecution service files an application with the courts under civil law.
JiHymas@himivest.com 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
But the table in question is a list of entititles that "have deemed part or all of Hezbollah a terrorist organization". The Netherlands have deemed Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and that is why they are trying to pressure the EU to include it in the EU list. This IS the dutch official position regadless of which specific actions they have taken so far. Marokwitz 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

References!

(added to make quotations from the article easier to follow) JiHymas@himivest.com 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Nasrallah's Nonsense, The New York Sun Staff Editorial, March 11, 2005

Thanks. I hadn’t thought of doing that, but it was bothering me too. :-)  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In 2002, Sheik Nasrallah was quoted by the Lebanon Daily Star as encouraging Jews to move to Israel. "If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide," he was quoted as saying."

As I told before this is clear distortion and he's never told such a thing on 22 October 2002.[3]--Sa.vakilian 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I believe "introduction" is very brief and suitable description to introduce Hezbollah and it shouldn't be omitted.--Sa.vakilian 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This part is formed to move unnecessary part from lead to body of article and if we omit this part, the lead will become long again.--Sa.vakilian 17:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know... it seems to me like the "Introduction" was better split up into its relevant sections. This way, you could get a good overview of the organization by reading the stuff under the top-level heading on each section, and you also wouldn't have to reread content that would have to be duplicated under both the introduction and the relevant section. Thoughts?  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess my guiding philosophy is that each section (Military, Civilian activities, Foreign relations, etc.) has its own introduction, making a comprehensive introduction unnecessary, as long as the lead is doing its job.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • But I would agree that the introduction to each section has to be pruned, if this is going to be workable, by relegating more content to subsections.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 19:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you if there weren't a big problem.I'm almost sure if we omit this part, then most of editors add such sentences in the lead. please look at this:[4](background=introduction).If you pay attention to history of this article, you'll find this part worked as a stack for moving some part of lead and shorten it. So I just want to prevent a loop.--Sa.vakilian 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In a normal publishing world, where one of us could spend a week writing a proper article that would be rarely changed, I would be in better agreement with Banzai, although I would retain a very short introduction that explained the structure of the article as much as anything else. In this world, where we have instances of vandalism and POV pushing every 5 minutes, I agree with Sa.vakilian. The old introduction was useful ... all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there, and it would be reverted by the other side very quickly. I'll confess, I never edited even the most egregious garbage in the intro ... I've only got one life to live! This new format hasn't been in existence long, but it does seem to me that the POV pushing has been smeared all over the page, making it more a nuisance. Bottom line? I say keep the intro until Hezbollah's out of the headlines for a few days, just as a 'pressure release valve'. Maybe we can start it off by getting Sa.vakilian and Labenah to write alternate sentences! JiHymas@himivest.com 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
(lol!) I like that proposal. Maybe you’re right.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 04:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on my idea about Introduction. So please do what you find right.--Sa.vakilian 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We should semiprotect of the page If there is vandalism every 5 minutes. like what is done in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict--Sa.vakilian 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I try to make introduction NPOV but it's impossible.So I prefer to have a POV introduction instead of a POV lead. As I told before I agree with Banzai, But I'm almost sure the lead attracts the POV-pushers like bees to honey because this issue is very controversial.Then all the POV-pushers simply put their precious little statement in there. If you doubt, Please pay attention to history.--Sa.vakilian 05:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. What I've been doing so far is looking at the "diff" between the current revision and when I last looked at it, which is sort of a pain, but tells you everything that's changed so you can look for blatant POV-ness throughout the article, not just in any one section. A "honeypot" would make this easier for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I support a brief Introduction section right after the lead as a "pressure release valve," though I hope we can eventually merge whatever comes out of it into the rest of the article. So far I've just been checking the diff's for blatant POV. A "honeypot" would make this easier, for now, and it's not too hard to keep an eye on the lead-in by itself.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
So I add a brief version of introduction.--Sa.vakilian 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I shortened the introduction before noticing this talk. Sorry about that. But I really think that the question about whether Hizbullah is terrorist or not does not need to be repeated 3 times in the article, especially since it is the focus of a huge amount of edits. If this bothers anyone, we can merge the entire introduction with the "mini introduction" in the beginning of the article. Marokwitz 11:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree. -- Szvest 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Flag should be remade

Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg should be redrawn. All the words are smudged. If you can't make a good SVG, just use a PNG. WP 07:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd fire up Illustrator and do it myself, but none of the corporate logo databases seem to include an EPS of Hezbollah's emblem. Damn.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 08:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Error

The second paragraph of this article states that there is debate in the Western world and even in Israel as to whether Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. There is no citation or support for that. The one provided [4] does not make the above statement. Furthermore, it is widely known that the US, Canada, Netherlands, and Israel deem Hezbollah a terrorist organization. (This information was obtained from this article regarding "Outside Views of Hezbollah." Also, remember a UN resolution was passed to disarm Hezbollah. So this topic is not debatable.

"not debatable"? So you suppose this decision by the four countries you mention (out of 192 UN members) was somehow reached without any debate? dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The new version of the lead is very controversial .

Although Hezbollah has been blamed in a number of 'terrorist' acts, there is disagreement in the international political community—even among Israel and its traditional Western allies—about whether it merits designation as a terrorist organization in full, in part, or not at all.[4][5][6] Within Lebanon and the Muslim world, Hezbollah’s armed operations are widely regarded as legitimate resistance against Israel.[4][7]

The first sentence induces there is terrorist asct which is officially proved. It's against NPOV policy.--Sa.vakilian 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, when I say "not debatable," I mean we (as you and I) can't decide if Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or not. We don't decide which facts to report. We need to report all the facts. We must state which countries deem it a terrorist organization. We should not be witholding certain information because we have certain bias and opinions. --68.1.182.215 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Per this discussion I changed it to a bit more balanced / unbiased wording, take a look and let me know what you think Marokwitz 08:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I read the leader as stating not that there exists disagreement *within* Israel or *within* these other countries, but rather *among* Israel and these other countries. Perhaps that important point needs further clarification, but I think it'd be hard to get any clearer than "in the [[international relations|international political]] community."  —Banzai! (talk) @ 18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Australia also deems Hezbollah a terrorist organization. see http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(153683DB7E984D23214BD871B2AC75E8)~Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF/$file/Attachment+A+-+AG_s.PDF Bombings in Buenos Aires, and planning attacks in places like Bangkok are not open for dispute. These were terrorist acts.

I would just like to point out, regarding anti-Semitism, that in the USA up until the 1960's Jews were openly discriminated against in all sorts of places, like clubs, resorts etc. The USA in WW2 had zero to do with Nazi Germany's racism. It had to do with Nazi Germany declaring war on the USA after their Axis partner Japan attacked them. German fliers shot down over Britain, interned in Canada and escaped to the USA could just buy a ticket on an American boat back to Germany up until late '41. LONG after numerous racist crimes were openly committed. Modern day Americans are totally deluded about this.

Semi-protection ?

There is quite a lot of vandalism on this page, and we end up spending more time reverting than actually improving and adding. I believe it would be a good idea to request a semi-protection. Any objections? Bertilvidet 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Szvest 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
OK by me. JiHymas@himivest.com 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaffe Institute

Jaffe have a list of weaponry which they give for Hezbollah's military capabilities, is it worth including some brief details from their report in this article in table form? RandomGalen 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand from this that the Jaffe Institute for Strategic Studies is affilliated with Tel Aviv University, so it has some claim to credibility. I would welcome brief estimates of strength, but am a bit nervous about the idea of a table. What do you have in mind? JiHymas@himivest.com 21:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jospin

Sorry, but how did Lionel Jospin manage to penetrate this article? He is quoted for denouncing Hezbollah's terrorist activities - not even labelling the organization as terrorists - when he was PM in the previous government. And the paragraph should be about which countries actually designate Hezbollah as terrorists. I am sure we can find quotes from most world leaders (at least in the West) denouncing some of Hezbollah's activities, but what's the point? Bertilvidet 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be odd and kick the old man out of this article. Object if you disagree. Bertilvidet 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. France does not release an "official" list of terrorist organizations, at least I didn't find one, so an official statement by the french PM is the best information we have to establish the official view of the country (at least at the time).
The paragraph is called Designation as a 'terrorist' organization, not going over what political leaders in diverse countries have expressed about Hezbollah or its activities. So, when France has not issued any clear statement about Hezbollah, I dont see our need to include the hints a previous French PM has given. Bertilvidet 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Jospin has not been PM since 2002 I believe, so this seems a moot point? There are individuals in power that have expressed their own opinion on Hezbollah, but I am not sure that the Grass deconstructionist minister of Albania's opinion should be added.. Mceder 20:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My two centimes worth - I agree -- Jonexsyd 10:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jospin is still alive and an important political figure in France. Hezbollah was not established during this conflict, but long befor. What does it matter when he was a in office? He said Hezbollah was using methods of terror which is very important. Hmm... so, a major political figure of a major country in Europe described Hezbollah as terrorist, you got to be kidding if you are saying it is not relevant, it is sourced, reliable, and absolutely true! Shamir1 19:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not see any need to include any statements by Jospin until such time as he is speaking as a representative of the government and stating government policy. JiHymas@himivest.com 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Shamir1 may have a point in so much as the French Government which Jospin was part of was pro Hezbollah not being proscribed by EU. The following administration carried this policy on and, if JPost is to be believed, vetoed the inclusion of Hezbollah on the EU's terrorism list. [5] That Jospin has now changed his mind on the issue is sort of remarkable. While he is not in power, his public statements may be relevant in terms of being an establishment figure or 'major political figure' as Shamir1 says speaking to his particular political constituency and setting the new 'message'.
Although most recently the EU has still declined requests from the Bush Admin, Congress, AIPAC etc to place Hezbollah on its list. RandomGalen 21:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Both quotiations are from Jospin's period in office. So no sign that he has changed his mind. In the references he does not describe Hezbollah as terrorists, nomatter howmuch Shamir would like him to say that. Jopsin condemns some concrete attacks, that he label as terroist attacks, carried out by the organization. Bertilvidet 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I stand corrected, thanks RandomGalen 15:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I still object to the statement in this article "the former French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin (during his term) has denounced the "terrorist attacks" of Hezbollah against Israel" due to by itself it being a moot point. I am sure I could find plenty of other ex-ministers that have denounced terrorist attacks, it would be a long list. What makes France special? Mceder 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
He was not an ex-minister when he made the statement. At the time he was the Prime Minister of France, and at that time Hezbollah was carrying out what he believed were terrorist attacks. Shamir1 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Shamir, please face that you are voted down on this issue. So far five contributors have argued that it is not necesarily to state that Jospin condemned some concrete attacks of Hezbollah in the paragraph about terrorist designations. You are the only one that argue the opposite, please respect that and let's move on. Bertilvidet 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing reference

Trying to clean up the reference a bit again.. "though it also opposes, at least ideologically, Israel’s existence at all." This ending line of the intro is backed by 4 references. Including this one:

MSN Encarta. Hezbollah (Full article requires registration).

  1. I suggest we remove this reference based on the fact that it requires registration. The info without registration is about two lines worth of nothing. The three other references are good enough. Mceder 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There's plenty of references for that one. JiHymas@himivest.com 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

apologetics

The aim of this organization, to destroy the state of israel, is well documented and supported by the facts on the ground. Having a statement in the intro which says that this is a "rhetorical" goal only seems highly ironic given the military buildup, the attack across the blue line, the daily shelling. I realize that someone worked really hard on the sentence and likes how it sounds, but it doesn't rellect the truth. Please don't put it back.

Also, Hezbollah refers to Israel as "the zionist entity" but the last time I looked this wasn't how it was identified on the map. The sentence needs to say that this is how Hezbollah refers to Israel.

Wikipedia should not whitewash what these guys stand for. Elizmr 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This was reverted again without explanation. Please follow Wikipedia policy and don't do this again. Elizmr 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This article should neither whitewash H. nor turn it into a boogeyman. Despite personal views on the group, we must remain cool and describe it in a neutral matter. I believe the disputed point is well described in the paragraph.Hezbollah#Position_on_Israel. H has stated several times that they not will have an issue with Israel, if they withdraw from the Shebba Farms and returning remaining Lebanese prisoners held inside Israel. Bertilvidet 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have stayed cool and used neutral language. I take issue with your cites on the Hezbollah aim of destroying Israel. One is a NY review of books article; the other (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/16/sun.11.html) just doesn't support the cite. If, in the middle of a war against Israel that Hez. initiated and is waging, you want to say that this aim is rhetorical, you need to back it up with something solid. Elizmr 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The New York Review of Books isn't just book reviews. I hope you actually read the referenced article, in which Nasrallah gives his position on his recognition of Israel w.r.t. the Palestinian territories. That section also references a Seymour Hersh interview with Nasrallah from the New Yorker:
“ I asked Nasrallah about his view of the renewed talks. He hesitated a moment and declared, “At the end, this is primarily a Palestinian matter. I, like any other person, may consider what is happening to be right or wrong. . . . I may have a different assessment, but at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on. Of course, it would bother us that Jerusalem goes to Israel.”

I asked, “But if there was a deal?”

“Let it happen,” he answered. “I would not say O.K. I would say nothing.”

 „
 —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The quote above does not say explicitly that HEzbollah does not have the aim to destroy Israel and it does not say explicitly that Hezbollah does not have the capability to destroy Israel. Please provide something that supports that statement or stop reverting my tag. Elizmr 21:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
How do the statements "It would bother us, [but] let it happen" (from Nasrallah) and "asked [about] a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, [Nasrallah] said ... he would not sabotage what is finally a 'Palestinian matter'" (from a different interview) not support that claim? If you want to dig around in Haaretz, I'm sure you could find plenty to corroborate. But don't look at me to do it.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
they don't do. First of all, they don't address the issue of capacity and the lead sentence mentions this. Second of all, they say that they would not interfere with a pal-isr agreement, but they don't say that they wouldn't want to invade israel and destroy it themselves. If you are going to make such a brash statement, you need to back it up with a clear direct quote rather than these roundabout things. It is not my responsibility to find cites for your unsupported statements. Elizmr 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care how disciplined Hizballah's militia may be, I don't care how many Katyushas it has in reserve. Are you seriously suggesting there is dispute over whether it has the capability to wipe a Israel, a nuclear power with one of the world's best-trained armies and the backing of most of the Western world, off the map? All else aside.  —Banzai! (talk) @ 00:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not disputing that (although I don't agree with your statement at all--Israel does not have the Western world's backing and in a few years Iran, and thus Hezbollah, will have a nuclear weapon). I am disputing a statement in Wikipedia saying that without a cite to back it up. you can't just put stuff in Wikipedia because it seems obvious to you. You need to provide appropriate citations. What you are doing is original research. Elizmr 00:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article is well-researched and informative, however, I think it does not yet meet criteron 5 at WP:WIAGA. A glance at the edit history reveals numerous content disputes, with over 50 edits in the past 24 hours. I think that the POV tag at the top of the article supports this assessment.

Despite what appears to be a substantial amount of disagreement, I think the editors involved have put together an exceptional article. I learned a lot about Hezbollah from this entry, and I look forward to supporting a GA nomination once disputes are resolved. —ptk✰fgs 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely.--Sa.vakilian 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A doubtful sentence

As I told frequently this sentence is based on a newspaper interpretaton Nasrallah has a history of making anti-Semitic statements (most infamously “if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

And the issue of that speech is "Christian Zionism"[6]. So it isn't an evidence for Anti-semitism.--Sa.vakilian 14:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The topic is "Christian Zionism" and N. looks at both sides of this issue in terms of pros and cons for Hezhollah. First, the "anti".... Then the "pro" side: it will save H. (presumably H. since he says "us") the energy needed to seek Jews out outside of Israel, presumably to "eliminate" them. Whatever the topic of the article, this is a flagrantly anti-Jewish statement. He has not come out in words or in deeds to say that he didn't mean it. There is no other way to slice it, except if one wants to do an apologetic whitewash. I'm not saying the guy is all bad--of course he's not--but he is certainly an anti-Jewish person Elizmr 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)